Go to page

A menacing post slithers

The cause of much contemporary misery in Western countries – criminality, domestic violence, drug addiction, aggressive youths, hooliganism, broken families – is the nihilistic, decadent and/or self-destructive behaviour of people who do not know how to live. Both the smoothing over of this behaviour, and the medicalisation of the problems that emerge as a corollary of this behaviour, are forms of indifference. Someone has to tell those people, patiently and with understanding for the particulars of the case, that they have to live differently.[24]

Poverty does not explain aggressive, criminal and self-destructive behaviour. In an African slum you will find among the very poor, living in dreadful circumstances, dignity and decency in abundance, which are painfully lacking in an average English suburb, although its inhabitants are much wealthier.[25]

An attitude characterised by gratefulness and having obligations towards others has been replaced – with awful consequences – by an awareness of "rights" and a sense of entitlement, without responsibilities. This leads to resentment as the rights become violated by parents, authorities, bureaucracies and others in general.[26]

One of the things that make Islam attractive to young westernised Muslim men is the opportunity it gives them to dominate women.[27]

Technocratic or bureaucratic solutions to the problems of mankind produce disasters in cases where the nature of man is the root cause of those problems.

It is a myth, when going "cold turkey" from an opiate such as heroin, that the withdrawal symptoms are virtually unbearable; they are in fact hardly worse than flu.[28][29]

Criminality is much more often the cause of drug addiction than its consequence.

Sentimentality, which is becoming entrenched in British society, is "the progenitor, the godparent, the midwife of brutality".[30]

High culture and refined aesthetic tastes are worth defending, and despite the protestations of non-judgmentalists who say all expression is equal, they are superior to popular culture.[31][32][33]

The ideology of the Welfare State is used to diminish personal responsibility. Erosion of personal responsibility makes people dependent on institutions and favours the existence of a threatening and vulnerable underclass.

Moral relativism can easily be a trick of an egotistical mind to silence the voice of conscience.[34]

The root cause of our contemporary cultural poverty is intellectual dishonesty. First, the intellectuals (more specifically, left-wing ones) have destroyed the foundation of culture, and second, they refuse to acknowledge it by resorting to the caves of political correctness.

Apparently these are themes of the works of Theodore Dalrymple. Haven't read this guy before, but I most certainly will. I would be disappointed though, if his proposed solution to all of this would be Christianity (no offense, onestep).

Condescending Bastard

I think we're seeing a fragmentation of western culture into subcultures.

A culture is defined by the values of the people in that culture, for example Christians value the sanctity of human life more than individual freedom whereas secular society values individual freedom more than the sanctity of human life, hence the ongoing conflict over whether or not abortions should be legal. As I said in the Culture Wars thread all sides are claiming to be under attack, the actual issue itself isn't as important to most people (i.e. people without an unwanted pregnancy) as the threat to the values that these people identify with.

I think this intercultural conflict is a natural process, it's how cultures adapt and develop over time, unfortunately I think the nature of this conflict has gone from being a constructive discourse to a destructive polarization of values.

Is it the media's fault?
Is it social media's fault?
Is it the internet's fault?

I don't know.

Deadlier, Sillier and more Perverted.
Roses are red, violets are blue, qualia doesn't exist, and neither do "you".
#Dullblades #Edgedaddy

Well-Known Member

I disagree with about half of it. Like, sure, absolute poverty doesn't cause criminality, but relative poverty does. People should just stand by with subservient ethics as I accumulate wealth and use it to cement my power by altering the laws and culture of the land to suit my absolutist self-concept as Mammon. Actually... everything I disagree with falls under the umbrella of absolutism. And it invites people to equate modern SJW extremists to relativists. Yuck.

Omg wow imo

This guy is a moron, he denies climate change (sorry, climate "skeptcism" is the right euphemism) and the importance assigned to it, an excellent barometer for epistemological unreliability and a good indicator that someone is simply too blinded by ideological crap to engage in rational debate. I will hereby not bother discussing any of the points in this list because I do not believe he cares for truth.

Also wtf is up with his weird name. Sounds like some kind of pompous hobbit, or like a parody of a dungeon and dragons character.

People marching for the climate !!! How horrifying!!! They weren't even diverse (though I wasn't actually there hurdurr.) What a dumbass. AND THEY HAVE THEIR CHILDREN WITH THEM!!! IN A PERFECTLY SAFE ENVIRONMENT THEY DARED TO BRING THEM ON A WALK IN THE STREET HOLDING POLAR BEAR BANNERS!! BRAINWASHING!!!

HELP I'M GETTING OLD I DONT UNDRSTAND YOUNG PEOPLE ANYMORE TEHY ARE LIKE ALIENS

The most hilarious thing is that he keeps accusing the marchers of smuggness when his own smuggness drips off every word. Omg. Oh wow. Omg he's such a prick.

Never mind that our minister for ecology just resigned in protest over lobbies halting any change in policy, look at all these privileged fucks who are expressing that they care about the terrible destruction and instability that's going to ensue from climate change.

wow so true imo

when i saw the thread title and author i fully expected to open it and end up reading a list of charged statements ranging from ignorant at worst to tenuously informed at best. but what i actually got was

a list of charged statements ranging from ignorant at worst to tenuously informed at best.

They call me the man who isn't could not try to would it. But I would it.

People marching for the climate !!! How horrifying!!! They weren't even diverse (though I wasn't actually there hurdurr.) What a dumbass. AND THEY HAVE THEIR CHILDREN WITH THEM!!! IN A PERFECTLY SAFE ENVIRONMENT THEY DARED TO BRING THEM ON A WALK IN THE STREET HOLDING POLAR BEAR BANNERS!! BRAINWASHING!!!

HELP I'M GETTING OLD I DONT UNDRSTAND YOUNG PEOPLE ANYMORE TEHY ARE LIKE ALIENS

The most hilarious thing is that he keeps accusing the marchers of smuggness when his own smuggness drips off every word. Omg. Oh wow. Omg he's such a prick.

Never mind that our minister for ecology just resigned in protest over lobbies halting any change in policy, look at all these privileged fucks who are expressing that they care about the terrible destruction and instability that's going to ensue from climate change.

I think the destruction of the environment and pollution are very serious problems. No one who has been to Peking or Delhi could possibly deny it.
[...]
What I object to is the indoctrination of children on contentious political matters.

In 2010, six out of the 10 most unequal countries worldwide were in Sub-Saharan Africa, and more specifically in Southern Africa. Namibia, Comoros, South Africa, Angola, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland count among the continent’s top ten most unequal countries and the most striking increase in inequality is found in South Africa and the Central African Republic

A menacing post slithers

when i saw the thread title and author i fully expected to open it and end up reading a list of charged statements ranging from ignorant at worst to tenuously informed at best. but what i actually got was

a list of charged statements ranging from ignorant at worst to tenuously informed at best.

wow so true imo

anyway the obvious problem here on just one issue that i care to pay any attention to is that he draws false equivalency between actual science and 'indoctrination of children on contentious political matters'

this supremely stupid statement implies that climate change is not a naturalistic phenomena to be investigated, but a matter of mere, "opinion" up for "debate" in a political arena

it's funny that he claims indoctrination here, when the only people who'd not see the obvious problem with his statements are people who are ironically, indoctrinated to politicise issues that arise from empirical investigation.

we're reaching "flat earther" levels of ignorance at this point and the time for debate has closed. the time for mockery is at hand

They call me the man who isn't could not try to would it. But I would it.

"When I talk to young people (I mean young people of the middle class, of course), I have increasingly the impression that they have been brainwashed, and that some thoughts are simply beyond the range of their neuronal possibilities. Admittedly, my impression does not count as scientific evidence; I have not conducted anything like a Gallup poll, and my sample may possibly be unrepresentative of everything, or representative of nothing. But when I say to the young people whom I meet that I am uncertain about global warming—I acknowledge my ignorance and lack of qualification on this subject—they react as I presume people would if, in Mecca, I denied the existence of God and alluded to the less attractive characteristics of Muhammad even as depicted by early Muslims."

"The paragraph I have quoted was truly representative of the intellectual quality and honesty of what followed. “Climate change,” say the authors, “is the largest global health threat of the 21st century and, despite limited empirical evidence, it is expected directly and indirectly to harm communities” psychosocial well-being.” This is not so much science as it is religion, in which the god worshipped is the bringer-bout of future catastrophe, a kind of Kali, whose destructiveness must be appeased by word, puja and sacrifice."

Lets just criticize anyone who raises their voice against climate change and coolly voice skepticism in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, and subtly, dismiss it as some kind of irrational privileged leftist conspiracy and liken it to "theology." He's literally the worst kind of manipulative asshole you can find on this topic. Oh look I'm a columnist in the same journal as Ann Coulter who says shit like this https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ann-coulter-hurricane-harvey_us_59a59bc2e4b084581a139315.

Isn't it odd all these right wing pundits dismiss climate change as a global hysterical conspiracy ? Hmmm I wonder what the problem is..?? What IS it about the action demanded in the face of climate change that bothers them so MUCH?

EDIT AND PS : Notice how the passage you linked claiming it shows he is not a climate skeptic expresses his concern for local pollution issues and ignores the wider problem of temperatures warming. If only we could pick up trash more :'(

Do I need to remind people, that an increase in two degrees is going to give a massive increase in destruction, rising sea levels, cyclones, tsunamis, (melting ice apparently destabilizes the earth's crust), drought, famine and mass migration. I'm not even gonna talk about biodiversity. Put all your gender political and welfare stuff on hold, this is the central political issue of our time. And for those more on the right side of the spectrum, this is going to increase immigration massively, which I'm sure they won't enjoy.

wow so true imo

"When I talk to young people (I mean young people of the middle class, of course), I have increasingly the impression that they have been brainwashed, and that some thoughts are simply beyond the range of their neuronal possibilities."

Well-Known Member

It should be pretty obvious that Serac just discovered the guy and didn't know the full extent of the man's positions. Like... he asked for a source about said newly discovered guy. "Holy shit, that's deserving of mockery! Let's retard discussion!"

In 2010, six out of the 10 most unequal countries worldwide were in Sub-Saharan Africa, and more specifically in Southern Africa. Namibia (8), Comoros (NA), South Africa (4), Angola (NA), Botswana (NA), Lesotho (NA) and Swaziland (NA) count among the continent’s top ten most unequal countries and the most striking increase in inequality is found in South Africa and the Central African Republic

I assume you're agreeing with me? The crime index seems to correlate pretty well with the inequality stats you mentioned, assuming we're just substituting "inequality" for relative poverty. Like, are you trying to argue that sub-saharan Africa has a low crime rate? I'm confused.

I think "subservient ethics" are merely what he advocates. They're not actually prevalent anywhere to my knowledge, and in the U.S., they died off with the Eisenhower administration. Just be a good little ______ and let the self-appointed do what we will, because it's proper. Because we said so.

*Edit: actually, correction: I think "subservient ethics" is specifically prevalent in the West, in the baby boom generation and their equivalents. But in any modern society? Not really. I'm tempted to say maybe China or some of the highly religious South American countries or something, but I don't know enough about them. Cuba?

A menacing post slithers

I assume you're agreeing with me? The crime index seems to correlate pretty well with the inequality stats you mentioned, assuming we're just substituting "inequality" for relative poverty. Like, are you trying to argue that sub-saharan Africa has a low crime rate? I'm confused.

so.. the statement he made was that poverty doesn't explain criminal and self-destructive behavior, by bringing up the example of African slums. You disputed that conclusion by claiming it is relative wealth that causes it, presumably justifying what goes on in UK suburbs, right? The only way I can make sense of that is that you suppose wealth inequality is larger in UK. Now you seem to be disputing something else – the premise of that statement, namely that there is such a thing as people living in poverty yet with dignity.

I personally have no opinion on whether it is absolute or relative wealth that causes crime. that sounds like a very complicated issue for which I wouldn't pull a conclusion out of my ass.

Omg wow imo

All this crime stuff is gonna go through the roof after the climate migrants refugees start pouring in and we don't have the structures or resources to accommodate them. I guess we can always try and tell them to take responsibility and stop listening to pop music though.

_aded

The cause of much contemporary misery in Western countries – criminality, domestic violence, drug addiction, aggressive youths, hooliganism, broken families – is the nihilistic, decadent and/or self-destructive behaviour of people who do not know how to live. Both the smoothing over of this behaviour, and the medicalisation of the problems that emerge as a corollary of this behaviour, are forms of indifference. Someone has to tell those people, patiently and with understanding for the particulars of the case, that they have to live differently.[24]

Poverty does not explain aggressive, criminal and self-destructive behaviour. In an African slum you will find among the very poor, living in dreadful circumstances, dignity and decency in abundance, which are painfully lacking in an average English suburb, although its inhabitants are much wealthier.[25]

An attitude characterised by gratefulness and having obligations towards others has been replaced – with awful consequences – by an awareness of "rights" and a sense of entitlement, without responsibilities. This leads to resentment as the rights become violated by parents, authorities, bureaucracies and others in general.[26]

One of the things that make Islam attractive to young westernised Muslim men is the opportunity it gives them to dominate women.[27]

Technocratic or bureaucratic solutions to the problems of mankind produce disasters in cases where the nature of man is the root cause of those problems.

It is a myth, when going "cold turkey" from an opiate such as heroin, that the withdrawal symptoms are virtually unbearable; they are in fact hardly worse than flu.[28][29]

Criminality is much more often the cause of drug addiction than its consequence.

Sentimentality, which is becoming entrenched in British society, is "the progenitor, the godparent, the midwife of brutality".[30]

High culture and refined aesthetic tastes are worth defending, and despite the protestations of non-judgmentalists who say all expression is equal, they are superior to popular culture.[31][32][33]

The ideology of the Welfare State is used to diminish personal responsibility. Erosion of personal responsibility makes people dependent on institutions and favours the existence of a threatening and vulnerable underclass.

Moral relativism can easily be a trick of an egotistical mind to silence the voice of conscience.[34]

The root cause of our contemporary cultural poverty is intellectual dishonesty. First, the intellectuals (more specifically, left-wing ones) have destroyed the foundation of culture, and second, they refuse to acknowledge it by resorting to the caves of political correctness.

Apparently these are themes of the works of Theodore Dalrymple. Haven't read this guy before, but I most certainly will. I would be disappointed though, if his proposed solution to all of this would be Christianity (no offense, onestep).

2. true (this is why i liked visiting my dealer when i still smoked weed, good people in that area of the world)

3. TRUE

4. true but that statement requires unpacking and a juxtaposition with current western women.

5. true, going back to islam, this is why the conservative clothing works in a population full of overly beautiful women and men with high libido.

6. no comment, i would imagine this is accurate going by my observations of other patients in rehabs.

7. true

8. not so sure about this one but i'll gladly observe reality and see what happens. i think sentimentality is needed to preserve what works in the face of objection as the world transforms, but i digress.

9. true, but i wouldn't word it this way.
refined aesthetic values should in general rise to the top in any environment that encourages it.
high culture is iffy for anyone not coming from anything even remotely resembling that, i should know i have plenty of difficulty interacting with the locals, but it does prove to be a great motivational tool assuming anarchy isn't high on the list of priorities for the society.
dunno if i explained this well.
if not, then just consider that they're listening to tupac in nigeria right now like it's the 90's.

10. true, plenty of issues erupting because of this right now.

11. false, yes there is an objective moral code but to note that our current moral frameworks are shaped relatively to one another is not a problem, just a valuable truth.

12. yes multiculturalism and all it entails is a big failure.
how do we fix it? no clue, we seem too far down this road to turn around now.

13. true. when the sex became a 2nd date activity instead of a 2nd night of being married activity it spelt the end of civilised behavior. everything else simply responds in sympathy to that.

14. yes, there is no culture to be had if any controversial discussions have to be shut down under the banner of needing to remain politically correct.
as i'm sure is noted by this thread reacting to a climate change denier.
i would ask what type of climate change but i digress.

Omg wow imo

It should be pretty obvious that Serac just discovered the guy and didn't know the full extent of the man's positions. Like... he asked for a source about said newly discovered guy. "Holy shit, that's deserving of mockery! Let's retard discussion!"

Okay fine. Lets ignore the fact that this guy is akin to someone who expresses skepticism over the moon landing in a manipulative way to serve ideological purposes. Lets entertain someone who has displayed scandalous and obvious intellectual dishonesty, what the hell.

What sources or arguments do we have provided for this series of affirmations ? What's up for discussion? It seems for example pretty uncontroversial to say that a deficiency in resources leads to an increase in crime. The author Rumplestiltskin or whatever is making many ideological affirmations and his first one and second ones to pick any are counter intuitive to common beliefs. The charge of proof rests therefore with him and it is not provided. Some vague evocation of anecdotal evidence of some African slum with no crime ? Aiyanah and Serac have both stated they agree with many or all of them. But these are all propositions, there is not a single argument for any of them.

_aded

It should be pretty obvious that Serac just discovered the guy and didn't know the full extent of the man's positions. Like... he asked for a source about said newly discovered guy. "Holy shit, that's deserving of mockery! Let's retard discussion!"

Okay fine. Lets ignore the fact that this guy is akin to someone who expresses skepticism over the moon landing in a manipulative way to serve ideological purposes. Lets entertain someone who has displayed scandalous and obvious intellectual dishonesty, what the hell.

What sources or arguments do we have provided for this series of affirmations ? What's up for discussion? It seems for example pretty uncontroversial to say that a deficiency in resources leads to an increase in crime. The author Rumplestiltskin or whatever is making many ideological affirmations and his first one and second ones to pick any are counter intuitive to common beliefs. The charge of proof rests therefore with him and it is not provided. Some vague evocation of anecdotal evidence of some African slum with no crime ? Aiyanah and Serac have both stated they agree with many or all of them. But these are all propositions, there is not a single argument for any of them.

iunno, he sounds like a regular run of the mill conservative to me.
perhaps a touch conspiratorial if he's going with the moon landing not having happened, if he says there were other moon landings we weren't told about then he's connected to the source be it spiritual or a physical informant.

sidebar: i don't buy into global warming either, i dont see renewable's stopping it, i don't see carbon tax stopping it and if the environmentalists were honest about it then hybrid and electric cars are only gonna make it worse by their narrative.
so the climate change malarchy ITT is a bit OTT for me.

Well-Known Member

Okay fine. Lets ignore the fact that this guy is akin to someone who expresses skepticism over the moon landing in a manipulative way to serve ideological purposes. Lets entertain someone who has displayed scandalous and obvious intellectual dishonesty, what the hell.

What sources or arguments do we have provided for this series of affirmations ? What's up for discussion? It seems for example pretty uncontroversial to say that a deficiency in resources leads to an increase in crime. The author Rumplestiltskin or whatever is making many ideological affirmations and his first one and second ones to pick any are counter intuitive to common beliefs. The charge of proof rests therefore with him and it is not provided. Some vague evocation of anecdotal evidence of some African slum with no crime ? Aiyanah and Serac have both stated they agree with many or all of them. But these are all propositions, there is not a single argument for any of them.

ITT? Where? I only see the propositions of Reginald Elkhardt Whatshisname in the OP. If I post an OP with Hitler's talking points, does that make me a Nazi? I didn't say them...

We've been given a list of things to talk about. Serac has made no claims supporting or refuting. He's interested in them. If we want sources, evidence, arguments, we're free to ask for them/make them.

so.. the statement he made was that poverty doesn't explain criminal and self-destructive behavior, by bringing up the example of African slums. You disputed that conclusion by claiming it is relative wealth that causes it, presumably justifying what goes on in UK suburbs, right? The only way I can make sense of that is that you suppose wealth inequality is larger in UK. Now you seem to be disputing something else – the premise of that statement, namely that there is such a thing as people living in poverty yet with dignity.

I personally have no opinion on whether it is absolute or relative wealth that causes crime. that sounds like a very complicated issue for which I wouldn't pull a conclusion out of my ass.

Poverty does not explain aggressive, criminal and self-destructive behaviour. In an African slum you will find among the very poor, living in dreadful circumstances, dignity and decency in abundance, which are painfully lacking in an average English suburb, although its inhabitants are much wealthier.[25]

I was focused on the first sentence of that one, and "inequality" is a better choice than "relative poverty," so thanks for that. Crime being independent of poverty makes zero sense. I'd expect the crime rate would reflect a combination of inequality x opportunity x culture. As for the rest, there's lots of inequality in Africa, but not a lot of opportunity compared to the wealthier UK.

*Edit: I should clarify that I mean opportunity to commit a crime/theft, not economic opportunity. Sorry. The UK has a greater density of shit-to-steal and people-who-have-things-to-steal-from.

In general, I get the sense that I agree with you, but maybe for different reasons. Like, I don't support many aspects of a welfare state because it simply doesn't work when led by incompetent people, and I support personal responsibility in the anarchist sense.

I don't think multiculturalism is a failure because I don't think it's a goal so much as it's a developmental stage.

I'll fight you on 13 though. Self-restraint, modesty, humility, detachment... All of that is unnecessarily restrictive. Let people experience the full range of their agency, which includes sex on the first date in the seats of a sports stadium while dressed as Vermin Supreme and Catwoman, or some other equally unmodest circumstances.

A menacing post slithers

But when I say to the young people whom I meet that I am uncertain about global warming—I acknowledge my ignorance and lack of qualification on this subject—they react as I presume people would if, in Mecca, I denied the existence of God and alluded to the less attractive characteristics of Muhammad even as depicted by early Muslims

it seems he is talking about people who react the exact same way you do here. I personally don't have any strong opinions on climate change, because I have not assessed the scientific evidence in detail. I have not read academic publications on the topic and evaluated their methods and conclusions. Have you done that? Have all those people marching for the climate done that? And do you expect me to take your word for it when you simply say there is "overwhelming scientific evidence" for it? All the references you have provided here, to me, just show his reaction to the cult-like behavior of people who uncritically assume certain things and treat it, as he put it, as a religious belief. You are clearly of the opinion that he is playing some sort of game where he hides his real beliefs and intentions, which is of course an opinion you are entitled to, but so far I have not seen anything to suggest it is true. And the way you present your case in this thread is not exactly persuasive. It's all just ad-homs and argument by association.

hmm
i agree with the people saying we as a species have little to no impact on the climate with our daily activities of commuting, eating, shitting, breathing, farming.

perhaps deforestation but one has to recognise that an industry is always concerned with it's own survival so anyone cutting down trees is planting trees to cut them down again in the future, forget environmentally responsible it's financially responsible.
if we do have any impact on the climate, then by proxy we should be able to control the climate in the most literal sense.

now of course it doesn't help running narratives that the celebrity scientists spilled the beans on real weather control already being a thing.
assuming that is true one has to wonder how the narrative of climate change is served when it's been noted we can cause droughts or make it rain with a primitive at best understanding of how to control the weather. granted i am assuming that military research in tandem with a black budget has propelled the tech far beyond a level anyone not "in the know" could fathom. as is noted by HAARP now being the fireworks equivalent to whatever the military has developed to replace it.

i think the narrative of climate change has been forwarded both as an attempt to create a job space for a growing population, force a technological advancement and institute more control via carbon tax.
also as a type of unifying narrative but it seems redundant when we're made our own worst enemies, perhaps that's intentional though.
there are more viable conclusions, imo, such as solar activity.
and no doubt both sides of this argument have engaged in forgery by this point, but the issue of the celeb scientists now saying we can control the weather means i can't take the yearly hurricanes seriously when they can be stopped with better measures than whatever bill gates has in mind.

plus it now snows in some parts of south africa in the winter, that's welcome.

Well-Known Member

it seems he is talking about people who react the exact same way you do here. I personally don't have any strong opinions on climate change, because I have not assessed the scientific evidence in detail. I have not read academic publications on the topic and evaluated their methods and conclusions. Have you done that? Have all those people marching for the climate done that? And do you expect me to take your word for it when you simply say there is "overwhelming scientific evidence" for it?

Specific effects and the efficacy of mitigation efforts are often questionable though.

Science also has a real communication problem. It's highly ironic for members of a field to complain about scientific illiteracy when they don't have anything close to an adequate PR front, interest beyond their specialized niche, or the combination of skills and willpower to communicate with a general audience.

In general, I get the sense that I agree with you, but maybe for different reasons. Like, I don't support many aspects of a welfare state because it simply doesn't work when led by incompetent people, and I support personal responsibility in the anarchist sense.

I don't think multiculturalism is a failure because I don't think it's a goal so much as it's a developmental stage.

I'll fight you on 13 though. Self-restraint, modesty, humility, detachment... All of that is unnecessarily restrictive. Let people experience the full range of their agency, which includes sex on the first date in the seats of a sports stadium while dressed as Vermin Supreme and Catwoman, or some other equally unmodest circumstances.

lol, on number 13
there is a happy middle ground to the line of sex and how it is communicated through society.
for instance, i find the yoga pants thing problematic for young males.
this is every day

lord have mercy if i put a black woman in yoga tights up on this motherfucker...lord have motherfucking mercy my nigga.
all that's left up for imagination on most takes is what shading the hardware will be.

i also find the availability of sex for men that could be fashioned as handsome to be problematic.
i find penetration before marriage to be problematic, look at the year it's 2018, we know AIDS isn't a hoax and we know how to put ourselves at risk of getting it.
i'm not saying go full sharia law like indonesia but it would be observant to observe the cultural mechanisms that are at play today as well as the viral mechanisms that are in the field of play.
why are there more single mothers? availability of sex
how do you fix it? with culture, not with a condom

i must say i do absolutely adore this vermin supreme and catwoman scenario.

as for multiculturalism, i'm satisfied to sit back and see where it goes, but there are issues that will have to be dealt with at some point.
the yoga pants being one of them. a key offender really imo, to think things were legit simpler with the mini-mini-mini-skirts.

A menacing post slithers

it seems he is talking about people who react the exact same way you do here. I personally don't have any strong opinions on climate change, because I have not assessed the scientific evidence in detail. I have not read academic publications on the topic and evaluated their methods and conclusions. Have you done that? Have all those people marching for the climate done that? And do you expect me to take your word for it when you simply say there is "overwhelming scientific evidence" for it?

Specific effects and the efficacy of mitigation efforts are often questionable though.

Science also has a real communication problem. It's highly ironic for members of a field to complain about scientific illiteracy when they don't have anything close to an adequate PR front, interest beyond their specialized niche, or the combination of skills and willpower to communicate with a general audience.

when it comes to climate change, my personal stance, which is not too dependent on the intricacies of the scientific evidence, is that it's a pure risk management problem. Even if there is, say, 1 out of 100 scientists who suggest we are about to fuck up the whole planet, my policy would be to take it seriously because we don't have too many planets left if this one goes to shit.

but when it comes to assessing the actual evidence, when I skim through the 1500-page report, I see that it's not straight-forward. For example, they have time series showing an increase in mean temperature over the last century. I guess that's enough proof for most people. In my line of work, where I deal with time series predominately, that would not prove anything. The only thing you can say is that current mean temperature is outside a certain confidence bound as established by the preceding thousands of years of temperature variation. I hope they do that analysis, although I don't know how your would measure temperatures thousands of years back in time. But regardless, that's an example of how difficult it is to make such inferences, and I'm not sure if it's within the grasp of most laymen out there.

In general, I get the sense that I agree with you, but maybe for different reasons. Like, I don't support many aspects of a welfare state because it simply doesn't work when led by incompetent people, and I support personal responsibility in the anarchist sense.

I don't think multiculturalism is a failure because I don't think it's a goal so much as it's a developmental stage.

I'll fight you on 13 though. Self-restraint, modesty, humility, detachment... All of that is unnecessarily restrictive. Let people experience the full range of their agency, which includes sex on the first date in the seats of a sports stadium while dressed as Vermin Supreme and Catwoman, or some other equally unmodest circumstances.

lol, on number 13
there is a happy middle ground to the line of sex and how it is communicated through society.
for instance, i find the yoga pants thing problematic for young males.
this is every day

lord have mercy if i put a black woman in yoga tights up on this motherfucker...lord have motherfucking mercy my nigga.
all that's left up for imagination on most takes is what shading the hardware will be.

i also find the availability of sex for men that could be fashioned as handsome to be problematic.
i find penetration before marriage to be problematic, look at the year it's 2018, we know AIDS isn't a hoax and we know how to put ourselves at risk of getting it.
i'm not saying go full sharia law like indonesia but it would be observant to observe the cultural mechanisms that are at play today as well as the viral mechanisms that are in the field of play.
why are there more single mothers? availability of sex
how do you fix it? with culture, not with a condom

i must say i do absolutely adore this vermin supreme and catwoman scenario.

as for multiculturalism, i'm satisfied to sit back and see where it goes, but there are issues that will have to be dealt with at some point.
the yoga pants being one of them. a key offender really imo, to think things were legit simpler with the mini-mini-mini-skirts.

Yeah, I can't help but stare at that, and I'm legit gay lol. Boobs in push-up bras get me too. I can't help it.

Didn't even think of AIDS.

Single mothers though? Here in the U.S. it seems more like a cultural thing, specifically like we've lost the ability to adequately assess mates, and also regressive sex education policies that result in teen pregnancies. Also, increasing economic inequality means higher divorce rates because people have less to lose. That's been our trend for the past few decades.

but when it comes to assessing the actual evidence, when I skim through the 1500-page report, I see that it's not straight-forward. For example, they have time series showing an increase in mean temperature over the last century. I guess that's enough proof for most people. In my line of work, where I deal with time series predominately, that would not prove anything. The only thing you can say is that current variation in temperature is outside a certain confidence bound as established by the preceding thousands of years of temperature variation. I hope they do that analysis, although I don't know how your would measure temperatures thousands of years back in time. But regardless, that's an example of how difficult it is to make such inferences, and I'm not sure if it's within the grasp of most laymen out there.

_aded

Yeah, I can't help but stare at that, and I'm legit gay lol. Boobs in push-up bras get me too. I can't help it.

Didn't even think of AIDS.

Single mothers though? Here in the U.S. it seems more like a cultural thing, specifically like we've lost the ability to adequately assess mates, and also regressive sex education policies that result in teen pregnancies. Also, increasing economic inequality means higher divorce rates because people have less to lose. That's been our trend for the past few decades.

but when it comes to assessing the actual evidence, when I skim through the 1500-page report, I see that it's not straight-forward. For example, they have time series showing an increase in mean temperature over the last century. I guess that's enough proof for most people. In my line of work, where I deal with time series predominately, that would not prove anything. The only thing you can say is that current variation in temperature is outside a certain confidence bound as established by the preceding thousands of years of temperature variation. I hope they do that analysis, although I don't know how your would measure temperatures thousands of years back in time. But regardless, that's an example of how difficult it is to make such inferences, and I'm not sure if it's within the grasp of most laymen out there.

i think everyone, on both genders, is just chasing the big O.
of course these are broad strokes, pleasure over substance.
and yes that does affect mate selection though i'm referring to children born out of wedlock specifically with my take, divorce rates are telling enough though.
this goes in tandem with high crime rates and the timescales are generational cause there's no fathers in the home. i mean shit i had criminal urge that was kept in check by my old man, didn't help that i'm creative when getting what i want. there's no telling what kind of stupid shit i might have done aside from the other stupid shit i already did.

what the sex-ed is doing is teaching kids how to cheat the game instead of telling them the rules of the game. now granted one can observe the hard set rules of engagement via pornography but that's not healthy, and very few people are watching porn with that in mind...i digress.
historical sources say not to have loose sex, coming from a time before AIDS.
current culture invites loose sex, it's in the pop music like lol kids are hearing that, whether the programming is intentional or accidental is irrelevant.

dare i say there are some sinister intentions behind the conception of some children in present times, this harkens back to the welfare state but also plays into steady divorce rates.

i'm also sure the "big bad" went to trump's house and told him to play ball on climate change and a few other topics. very easy to know trump isn't being genuine cause he reads instead of speaking. another reason why i like him i guess, i get to see when it's actually him speaking and when he's just been told to be a mouth piece by someone higher up the stack than him.

wow so true imo

um no Serac it's not actually that "hard to make inferences" and no one has to read 1500 studies to make an informed opinion on the topic of climate change

the fact that you're ignorant doesn't mean that anyone has to be patient and respectful towards you when your default position on the subject is to regurgitate the opinions of a conservative pundit

you sit here talking about science and how people need to use science to reference their claims - while you're referencing a writer well established to range in their views from conservative to alt-conservative. and then complaining that people who align their opinions with numerous broadly reputable research agencies and universities are not giving you a fair piece of discourse when they point out that actually climate change is real and very destructive.

no one owes any patience or respect to your wilful ignorance

They call me the man who isn't could not try to would it. But I would it.

_aded

I was at the aquarium a few months ago, in dubai.
they had the largest most magnificent lobster I had ever seen, and they were in abundance.
wanted to take one to the nobu restaurant next door and have them make something amazing with it.

speaking of they have the most amazing scallop and octopus sushi there, to die for.
wished the sea urchin was in season, maybe next time.

think again losers

Poor Serac. All he wanted to do was share his enthusiasm for bullet points and you people act like this. He definitely doesn't seek out conflict and then complain when he found it. Nope. Nuh-uh. Never.

Professional victim.

My 2c is if someone takes a formal stance against climate change, I don't have to listen to what else they have to say about anything. I've heard it all before, and this person's process is clearly compromised.

A menacing post slithers

Poor Serac. All he wanted to do was share his enthusiasm for bullet points and you people act like this. He definitely doesn't seek out conflict and then complain when he found it. Nope. Nuh-uh. Never.

it seems he is talking about people who react the exact same way you do here. I personally don't have any strong opinions on climate change, because I have not assessed the scientific evidence in detail. I have not read academic publications on the topic and evaluated their methods and conclusions. Have you done that? Have all those people marching for the climate done that? And do you expect me to take your word for it when you simply say there is "overwhelming scientific evidence" for it? All the references you have provided here, to me, just show his reaction to the cult-like behavior of people who uncritically assume certain things and treat it, as he put it, as a religious belief. You are clearly of the opinion that he is playing some sort of game where he hides his real beliefs and intentions, which is of course an opinion you are entitled to, but so far I have not seen anything to suggest it is true. And the way you present your case in this thread is not exactly persuasive. It's all just ad-homs and argument by association.

but when it comes to assessing the actual evidence, when I skim through the 1500-page report, I see that it's not straight-forward. For example, they have time series showing an increase in mean temperature over the last century. I guess that's enough proof for most people. In my line of work, where I deal with time series predominately, that would not prove anything. The only thing you can say is that current mean temperature is outside a certain confidence bound as established by the preceding thousands of years of temperature variation. I hope they do that analysis, although I don't know how your would measure temperatures thousands of years back in time. But regardless, that's an example of how difficult it is to make such inferences, and I'm not sure if it's within the grasp of most laymen out there.

Oh man. Please don't do this. Please realize that it's ludicrous comparing people who believe in climate change to some kind of theology. I honestly beg of you. Did you read through all of quantum physics to check that they have that right too ? If you're sick, do you read the full medical reports on your treatment before accepting your doctor's diagnosis? Do you call into doubt the status-quo on the treatment for cancer because a minority of medical researchers disagree? If you answer yes to those questions, then fair enough, but most likely your answer is no, and in this case, WHY apply a different standard for climatologists ?? Also yes, I have looked over the material anyway. Have you been under a rock ? How has something of this magnitude not struck you as important ?

We are not, as human beings, capable of knowing everything efficiently ourselves, this is why we need experts, and why we also need to trust experts when they talk. If physicists tell me the experiments they perform show that shit acts like it is both a wave and a particle depending on the manner I conduct the experiment. I go omg wtf and after some analysis on the reliability of the source, and other factors such as how it coheres, I deffer to them as experts. I accept what they tell me.

Anyhow, I'll cut the climate discussion for now. Just for precision @Lagomorph Serac agrees in varying degrees with most of these bullet points or he would not have posted them. I also know Serac well enough to guess that he likes 1 and 2 pretty well. Now, I guess I could kind of mock Serac for defending Theodore now that it's quite obvious that he's a sophistic shill, but whatever. We can, of course, analyze different statements by one person even if they have provided a reason not to be trusted. Personally if I detect dishonest motives in someone, then I don't linger. Each proposition can ofc be analyzed and argued for independently. However, like I said in post 18, this is just a series of affirmation with no arguments, and I believe the charge of the proof for many of the counter intuitive ones lies with the person who makes them. Kind of like if I affirm that unicorns exist, I'm the one who has to prove that they do, other people don't have to disprove that they exist. Honestly though, I doubt I'm gonna have the intellectual energy for this thread. Unless someone baits me reeeeeally masterfully.

Omg wow imo

@Lagomorph I know how to spot pseudoscience just fine no worries. I also recognize that GMO is not clear cut and much more complex. The warming of the climate caused by human activities and the probability of it having negative effects is however a pretty clear cut issue and a vast vast majority of specialists agree on the crux of it. Neither Neil De Grass Tyson or Bill Nye are specialists in the GMO sector either, so I wouldn't turn to them as experts on this.

Fine, lets just ask Serac shall we? @Serac to what extent do you or do you not agree with this bullet point list which you have proclaimed to be "the coolest one you have seen in a while" ?

I am quite taken aback by this statement. The intention of it appears to be to say that opiate addiction is some kind of moral failing. It is well known that opiates high jack the reward system and mess with serotonin and dopamine transmitters. This is not simply a flu because it can make you suicidal and unstable. It literally interferes with the system in your brain that deals with choice and therefore your autonomy. I would turn to stuff like this instead of this weird outdated dude on the matter. https://www.neuroscience.cam.ac.uk/research/cameos/AddictedBrain.php

One of the things that make Islam attractive to young westernised Muslim men is the opportunity it gives them to dominate women

Possibly, never read any sociological studies on the matter. Would be curious to. I should think perhaps like any conversion there is some deep sense of meaning that comes factors into it. Tbh I'm friends with a couple of muslims and I don't feel any domination coming from them when we interact. Granted, they are Africans who come from muslim family culture and not converted westerners. Actually I find them more respectful than most people come to think of it. Also they don't drink so they don't get loud and obnoxious (like I do.) On the other hand some of the most myoginistic and domineering people I have met were atheists.

Technocratic or bureaucratic solutions to the problems of mankind produce disasters in cases where the nature of man is the root cause of those problems.

I think that given the inherent diversity of beliefs that arise within any given society and the propensity for mobility that anti-multiculturalism is unrealistic. Take any form of music or technology or philosophy throughout history and you'll see that it emerged from a meeting and melding of different cultures. Multiculturalism is not only inescapable, it's also good, diversity and pluralism is a motor for progress. Furthermore, if one looks at the history of Europe for example, it is policies which accommodate pluralism that have led to more peaceful societies. For example, public policy for religious freedom is an inherently multicultural policy, this effectively stopped the protestants and catholics from being at each other's throats. Why do you think europe stopped all the internal fighting at some point? Of course, such policies impose that people treat each other as equals and do not hurt each other, so there is always a common value that must be accepted behind it for it to work. A unifying principle.

Criminality is much more often the cause of drug addiction than its consequence.

I would say it's probably some kind of nefarious circle. I think legalizing drugs would help actually, as drug networks engage in criminality more precisely because the drug is illegal. There are other factors most likely.

An attitude characterized by gratefulness and having obligations towards others has been replaced – with awful consequences – by an awareness of "rights" and a sense of entitlement, without responsibilities. This leads to resentment as the rights become violated by parents, authorities, bureaucracies and others in general

I really don't see the awful consequences of rights in the law. Again, not sure what he's referring to, vague.

The root cause of our contemporary cultural poverty is intellectual dishonesty. First, the intellectuals (more specifically, left-wing ones) have destroyed the foundation of culture, and second, they refuse to acknowledge it by resorting to the caves of political correctness.

Yeah sure. Whatever. What are you gonna do? Police art ? Most people are not non-judgementalists. And art is weird anyway, judge it however you like, argue about it, but it should be very free, the terrible consequence of the opposite would be that it would become uniform and lack innovation etc.

Think.. Be... ..buzz buzz :)

Just a note these are points from his wikipedia page so a more indepth look at his thoughts from his books might be more apt. Not to rain on your post higs~!

Either way anyone who submits a well rounded thought across a variety of subject points can easily he thought of as someone to take note and interest of. Kind of like people taking interest in Hegel for his incredibly voluminous work... Uh anyway ive seen to floated away to philosophy again, amen.

Anyways whos up for some relationship talk- wheres a good place to take a girl out on a date in November?

There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, cries Mine! - Abraham Kuyper

Omg wow imo

Just a note these are points from his wikipedia page so a more indepth look at his thoughts from his books might be more apt. Not to rain on your post higs~!

Either way anyone who submits a well rounded thought across a variety of subject points can easily he thought of as someone to take note and interest of. Kind of like people taking interest in Hegel for his incredibly voluminous work... Uh anyway ive seen to floated away to philosophy again, amen.

Anyways whos up for some relationship talk- wheres a good place to take a girl out on a date in November?

Make no mistake I'm absolutely supplementing my understanding of this post with research into the author and his general views including his books and interviews.

Mod moment : This thread has been sufficiently derailed, could discussions about Dubai, aquariums, relationships, november, interesting though they may be, or anything not related to the author in any way please be confined to another thread. At least make some attempt about it. Please XD.

I am now genuinely interested in discussing this in depth if anyone wants to take me up on it.

I am quite taken aback by this statement. The intention of it appears to be to say that opiate addiction is some kind of moral failing. It is well known that opiates high jack the reward system and mess with serotonin and dopamine transmitters. This is not simply a flu because it can make you suicidal and unstable. It literally interferes with the system in your brain that deals with choice and therefore your autonomy. I would turn to stuff like this instead of this weird outdated dude on the matter. https://www.neuroscience.cam.ac.uk/research/cameos/AddictedBrain.php

I think it's quite clear that in that statement, no one is disputing the realities of opiate addiction. what he is referring to is the common excuse used by opioid addicts that they wouldn't be able to quit even they wanted to – due to the physical withdrawal effects. and it is true that the withdrawal induces flu-like symptoms, but then the question is: are you justified in continuing to destroy your own life because quitting would entail a flu-like episode?

The point of this book and the underlying meaning of this sentence is that we should shut down addiction clinics because they're just pandering to morally corrupt people who should just take responsibility. Withdrawal is not *just* like a flu because it is also heavily accompanied by depression and CRAVINGS. Furthermore neuroscientific research shows that addicts have re-wired their brain through drug use in such a manner that they get little reward from every day life activities but disproportionate reward from the use of their drug. Drugs feel good and are craved because they literally hack your reward system so that you don't care about other stuff except the drug. You have to accept that there are some powerful elements of physiological determinism that takes a disproportionate amount of willpower and so it makes sense that the path to recovery be greatly facilitated by medical assistance amongst other things.